The Federalist No. 45

[figure 8]

Originally Posted by Blue Eyes White Dragon

So you don't think representatives should represent the people and what they want? Really? Polls showed people were not in favor of THIS healthcare reform and yet it was rammed through anyway. I guess you place no significance on recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia and most importantly Massachusttes. When a state as liberal as Mass elects a republican to the senate that ought to tell you something.

So... what you want is for us to elect people, but then instead of letting them make their own decisions, they have to do whatever the polls say? Why even have elections for representatives then? Why not base every law on a popular vote (maybe this is what you want?)?

The representatives represent the people and what they wanted at the time of the last election. It would be nice if there was a way to have elections every 6 months to have the representatives stay "up-to-date" on what the people want, but that sort of turnover doesn't seem practical. The representatives can vote however they want. They were elected. If the people don't like what a representative has done throughout their term, then they can elect a new person at the end of the term. Plus, hindsight is 20/20 and people tend to change their minds too... so they might not like what Senator X does in year 3 of his term, but when the 6 years are up, they might decide that he still best represents what they want... and/or that they now like that decision he made in year 3.

Originally Posted by Blue Eyes White Dragon

Since the begining? Maybe you should study your history. Furthermore maybe you should read about the powers reserved for the federal government and the powers reserved for states. Somehow adding new federal taxes for something other than international politics or interstate commerce like for a socialist welfare program has not been something we had since the begining and frankly it is unconstitutional.

Okay, I'll admit I don't know the complete history of federal vs. non-federal taxes in our country. I was just saying we've had taxes since the beginning. I wasn't specifically talking about federal taxes on welfare programs... I was being vague... mainly because (as I said in my response before) I couldn't quite tell what you were saying. Anyway, we've had federal taxes on things other than int'l politics or interstate commerce for quite awhile (and if you think federal taxes on a welfare program = socialism, that's fine... that's just your definition of socialism)... so do you think we've been disenfranchised since, say the New Deal or something... or do you think that's something that's just happening now? The point I was trying to make before was that I didn't understand how you think this "disenfranchising" is something that's just happening right now and wasn't going on before.

I'm just curious, are you one of those people who refuses to pay income taxes?

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Originally Posted by figure 8

So... what you want is for us to elect people, but then instead of letting them make their own decisions, they have to do whatever the polls say? Why even have elections for representatives then? Why not base every law on a popular vote (maybe this is what you want?)?
... The representatives can vote however they want. They were elected.

No, I don't think a representative should vote however they want. Yes, they are given that power. But I also think they have a responsibility and to purposefully ignore the will of the people on an important issue is an abuse of power. Simply because you were elected to office does not mean you should ignore that your job is to still represent the will of the people. And if the will of the people changes then hell yes they should take that into account while doing their job.

Okay, I'll admit I don't know the complete history of federal vs. non-federal taxes in our country. I was just saying we've had taxes since the beginning.

Yeah, I can tell there is a lot that you don't know.

I'm just curious, are you one of those people who refuses to pay income taxes?

Not yet. I probably pay more in taxes than you make. But I'm thinking of taking my money and leaving. Or I may just stop working and collect unemployment and free healthcare for a few years. Maybe start a business in switzerland or monaco.

[figure 8]

Originally Posted by Blue Eyes White Dragon

No, I don't think a representative should vote however they want. Yes, they are given that power. But I also think they have a responsibility and to purposefully ignore the will of the people on an important issue is an abuse of power. Simply because you were elected to office does not mean you should ignore that your job is to still represent the will of the people. And if the will of the people changes then hell yes they should take that into account while doing their job.

But wasn't the nation fairly split on health care? It's not like 99% of the people were against it. Even though Mass. had an R elected (in a close race, by the way), weren't the nationwide polls generally fairly split?

Originally Posted by Blue Eyes White Dragon

Yeah, I can tell there is a lot that you don't know.

Um, okay. I've never met someone who doesn't have a lot they don't know.

Originally Posted by Blue Eyes White Dragon

Not yet. I probably pay more in taxes than you make. But I'm thinking of taking my money and leaving. Or I may just stop working and collect unemployment and free healthcare for a few years. Maybe start a business in switzerland or monaco.

What sort of business?

[Delothus]

Originally Posted by rekrap

It's too big to fail.

agreed

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Originally Posted by figure 8

Um, okay. I've never met someone who doesn't have a lot they don't know.

People are specialized. But the difference between people with common sense and those without is that those with common sense know what they know and know what they don't know. They speak up in the areas where they know something and keep quiet, listen and learn in the areas where their knowledge is not so strong. The ones without common sense speak as if they know something when they haven't a clue. For example, claiming things have always been a certain way when actually they have not.

Good day.

[figure 8]

Originally Posted by Blue Eyes White Dragon

People are specialized. But the difference between people with common sense and those without is that those with common sense know what they know and know what they don't know. They speak up in the areas where they know something and keep quiet, listen and learn in the areas where their knowledge is not so strong. The ones without common sense speak as if they know something when they haven't a clue. For example, claiming things have always been a certain way when actually they have not.

Good day.

Agreed. And if one was to claim we are under a socialist dictatorship, then have someone else attempt to refute his points using logic to try to make a conversation, and then turn to make seemingly arrogant comments and insults... is that common sense or something else?

(By the way, all I said was we've had taxes from the beginning... I didn't know you were talking about federal taxes, much less federal taxes on welfare programs... like I disclosed in my response, I couldn't quite tell what you were talking about, so I was vague... not sure how this reflects a lack of common sense on my part... my admission of not knowing the history of federal vs. non-federal taxes wasn't even relevant to what I was saying... not even sure why I bothered to say that since it wasn't relevant besides the fact that you brought up studying history... if you want to have a logic-based discussion, let me know... if you want to continue by talking about making more money than me and how I don't know a lot of things, I'm not going to waste any more of my time...)

[Maphisto's Sidekick]

Originally Posted by figure 8

Agreed. And if one was to claim we are under a socialist dictatorship, then have someone else attempt to refute his points using logic to try to make a conversation, and then turn to make seemingly arrogant comments and insults... is that common sense or something else?

It's just a sad artifact of the education system gutted by the current socialist dictatorship and the preceding fascist dictatorship.

[figure 8]

Originally Posted by Maphisto's Sidekick

It's just a sad artifact of the education system gutted by the current socialist dictatorship and the preceding fascist dictatorship.

Ha, nice.

Honestly, I think it's just politics as we now know it.

[Blue Eyes White Dragon]

Originally Posted by figure 8

Agreed. And if one was to claim we are under a socialist dictatorship, then have someone else attempt to refute his points using logic to try to make a conversation, and then turn to make seemingly arrogant comments and insults... is that common sense or something else?

I guess it is something else when you turn to making arrogant comments and insults, and in order for you to make logical arguments you have to be familiar with facts.

Obama did not campaign on the specifics of this health deform. This health deform was not what the people wanted which is why a heavily democratic state like MA voted for a republican. The legislation was pushed through via threats and bribes. To me, if unpopular legislation is pushed through via threats and bribes that sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Now, some of the people who voted for health deform (probably without reading it) claim that is only unpopular because people don't understand it. Now they have to educate the voters to explain to them why it is good. Sounds to me like the cart before the horse, if you can't sell it ahead of time then it should not be put into law.

What the bill will do: it will cut Medicare, it will increase taxes on employers, individuals, industries, it will increase insurance rates on young people, it will increase individual and small group rates (look at what happened in MA and other states). It will increase Medicaid by 40% by extending eligibility to 133% of the FPL. So who wins? People who don't work and are poor who did not have insurance before. Who loses: Everyone else, Medicare beneficiaries, people who buy insurance today whose rates go up, employers and workers. Simple wealth redistribution to those who don't want to work and merely want entitlements. Populist dictatorship.

[figure 8]

Originally Posted by Blue Eyes White Dragon

I guess it is something else when you turn to making arrogant comments and insults, and in order for you to make logical arguments you have to be familiar with facts.

Obama did not campaign on the specifics of this health deform. This health deform was not what the people wanted which is why a heavily democratic state like MA voted for a republican. The legislation was pushed through via threats and bribes. To me, if unpopular legislation is pushed through via threats and bribes that sounds more like a dictatorship than a democracy.

Now, some of the people who voted for health deform (probably without reading it) claim that is only unpopular because people don't understand it. Now they have to educate the voters to explain to them why it is good. Sounds to me like the cart before the horse, if you can't sell it ahead of time then it should not be put into law.

What the bill will do: it will cut Medicare, it will increase taxes on employers, individuals, industries, it will increase insurance rates on young people, it will increase individual and small group rates (look at what happened in MA and other states). It will increase Medicaid by 40% by extending eligibility to 133% of the FPL. So who wins? People who don't work and are poor who did not have insurance before. Who loses: Everyone else, Medicare beneficiaries, people who buy insurance today whose rates go up, employers and workers. Simple wealth redistribution to those who don't want to work and merely want entitlements. Populist dictatorship.

I think the issue is giving too much power to one party. We have a country where a lot of people are independents. A majority are not R's, and a majority are not D's. So when we have a Congress/President combo that is overwhelmingly one party, right there we have a misrepresentation of the people. Most people in this country are not D's, yet we are being represented primarily by D's. We had the same issue when the R's were control.

It is a flaw in our democracy that allows such a thing to happen. I wish there could be no parties (not practical given the way things are now though) or at least a system with more than 2 significant parties (to reflect the make-up of the country more accurately).

I see what you're saying with the term "populist dictatorship," since the people voted one party into a significant majority that just passed a significant piece of fairly unpopular legislation. However, in my mind a dictator is someone with complete authority... while the D's do have the power right now, I still don't think they have complete authority. If it were a true dictatorship, why doesn't the health care reform bill have a public option (just one example)? In my mind, under a Democrat dictatorship, the R's would be a complete non-factor in day-to-day legislation, which isn't the case. True that the health care reform is fairly unpopular, but I don't think that should be a huge surprise since, as I mentioned before, despite being voted into office, the D majority did not accurately represent the country to begin with. It's an unfortunate result that can occur under our 2-party system. But the whole dictator argument is really just an argument of semantics at this point.